02.12.2025 sayandeep Sl. No. 09 Ct. No. 03 WPA 27315 of 2025 Sri Swapan Kumar Nayak Vs. State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Jayanta Kr. Das Ms. MAdhumanti Das ….for the petitioner Mr. Soumitra Bandopadhyay Mr. Subhasis Bandopadhyay ….. for the State Mr. Subir Sanyal., Sr. Adv. Mr. Sk. Sahjahan ….. for the respondent Nos. 12 to 17 Mr. Debasish Das …. for the respondent Nos. 18 to 24 1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the submission of a no-confidence motion by way of a letter against the Chairman, Egra municipality, dated 20th November, 2025. The petitioner would complain that previously a letter to initiate no-confidence motion was issued on 2nd September, 2024 against the Chairman of Egra municipality by certain councilors. Later such notice was withdrawn. 2. On this occasion, since the no-confidence motion has not been withdrawn, the petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the legality and validity of such notice. The petitioner is supported by 7 several councilors who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 18 to 24. The petitioner has, however, raised a legal contention and would contend that the above WPA 27315 of 2024 2 requisition notice which has been issued against the petitioner is not a requisition for no-confidence motion simplisitor but is a charge made against the petitioner with regard to alleged unethical activities and negligence in rending municipal services. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid requisition is stigmatic and as such the aforesaid requisition is not a valid requisition for initiating a no-confidence motion under Section 18(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), for removal of the Chairman from office. The learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature and as such ordinarily, the same should not be permitted to be included in a no- confidence motion where the petitioner does not get an opportunity to respond to the same. 3. In support of his aforesaid contention he has placed reliance on two several Judgments delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ujjal Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2013(1) CHN (CAL) 458 and in the case of Razia Sultana v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in AIR 2023 Calcutta 189. 4. Mr. Sanyal, learned sr. advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 12 to 17. He would by placing before this Court the unreported Judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of WPA 27315 of 2024 3 Swapan Kumar Nayak vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. in WPA(P)/385/2024 dated 12th September, 2024 submit that the Division Bench of this Court had noted that if the petitioner is unable to exercise his power of the Chairman in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, then he is unfit to continue as a Chairman of the municipality. 5. According to Mr. Sanyal, since the Court itself had issued a declaration that the petitioner is unfit to such post and since, the aforesaid order has not been challenged by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot complain that the requisition notice which is impugned in this petition, is stigmatic. 6. While responding to the above, the learned advocates representing the petitioner and respondent Nos. 18 to 24 would jointly submit that in different set of facts, the above Judgment in the case of Swapan Kumar Nayak (supra) was delivered. The same has no bearing on a requisition notice issued for seeking no confidence which is stigmatic. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that the requisition notice that has been issued seeking to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner identifies and charges the petitioner of various illegal, unethical activities and negligence in rendering municipal service. WPA 27315 of 2024 4 8. Having regard thereto, it cannot be said that the above requisition notice is not stigmatic. I find that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Razia Sultana (supra) in no uncertain terms in paragraphs 29 and 30 has been pleased to observe as follows: 29. “In the present case the allegation in the notice is that the Pradhan is not discharging her duties transparently and consequently in the opinion of the requisitionists, the development work of the Panchayat is being disrupted. This is the reason why the requisitionists have expressed their lack of confidence in the writ petitioner in our view the allegation of lack of transparency on the part of the Pradhan is a serious allegation which may include an innuendo that the Pradhan is involved in clandes-tine deals for self- aggrandisement or that the Pradhan does not act fairly or honestly, as a result whereof the residents of the villages under the concerned Panchayat have suffered because of disruption of development work in the locality. These are possible imputations or inferences that can be drawn from the allegations made in the removal notice. If these allegations do not amount to stigma, we do not know what would. These allegations clearly mean that the Pradhan is unfit for the post and is a person of dubious character. 30. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the notice of removal. The learned Judge also set aside the resolution removing the writ petitioner as Pradhan and the resolution electing the appellant as Pradhan. The appellant was elected during the pendency of the writ petition. Learned Judge, upon being approached by the writ petitioner for an interim order to stall the process of election of a new Pradhan, did not pass any restraint order but observed that all steps taken shall abide by the result of the writ petition. Hence, the election of the appellant was subject to the final result of the writ petition. Since the writ petition succeeded in as much as the learned Judge set aside the notice of removal submitted by the requisitionists, the learned Judge was perfectly justified in setting aside all subsequent acts including election of the appellant as Pradhan. This was a natural corollary and consequence of the notice of removal of the writ petitioner and her removal as Pradhan being set aside and the writ petitioner being reinstated as Pradhan.” WPA 27315 of 2024 5 9. Having regard thereto, in my view, the above requisition notice which implicates the petitioner on various charges cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. 10. The aforesaid shall, however, not interfere with the rights of the councilors to initiate no-confidence motion without any stigma attached to the Chairman if so advised, and the proviso of Section 18(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 shall not create a bar for moving an appropriate motion afresh. 11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)